Untitled

.

Attached: 1541976891807.png (515x502, 344K)

Other urls found in this thread:

patheos.com/blogs/dispatches/2018/10/15/study-45000-deaths-per-year-due-to-lack-of-health-insurance/
apnews.com/afs:Content:2601590439
prospect.org/blog/tapped/one-nine-full-time-workers-remain-mired-poverty
youtube.com/watch?v=GYoKRS_eWZY
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Very nice. He's such a gentleman

literally who?

That's the president of the united states you dumb fuck!!

me on the left

Who here is voting for Donald J Trump in 2020? I am

well he needs a haircut if you ask me

Shannon Hoon, How I miss you...

what? how the fuck did Shannon Hoon become president? didn't he die in the 90s?

i might vote Yang, dawg. Trump needs to deliver

Yang gang

did the Donald sell him the heroin”

Yang gang is so obviously a plant movement whos only purpose is to reuse trump era memes to sabotage the dem primaries

Attached: 84083A03-09E7-44AD-BA57-ECB964B22FDF.jpg (763x529, 49K)

idk about that, dawg, Yang seems like a genuine guy, addressing problems Trump ignores

You seem like a genuine guy stay

Attached: 15373CC2-980F-456F-AB3D-2F7621B16CA2.jpg (750x1252, 246K)

>Hey Shannon, big fan of your music-- really, lovely music. Hey, listen... I have this friend, great guy, name's Jeffrey Epstein. Jeffrey has this jet he takes me on, we fly to his private island; it really is a lovely, beautiful island, Shannon. I'd like to take you on a trip with me there, Shannon, would you like to go?

>addressing problems trump ignores
like paying you and thousands of other NEETS a 1000 dollars a month to sit on your ass and browse Yea Forums?

cope

and immigration, and the lack of importance of a college education in the modern job market

Attached: D1GnVERXQAA3f7L.jpg (1352x1078, 175K)

>immigration
lmao yang isn't gonna do a thing about beaners (not that trump really has either). you really telling me you think he will take a hardline on the southern border?

Attached: 1541841196572.jpg (474x356, 29K)

you know dems have always been anti immigration, right? they're just being contrarian right now 'cause muh drumpf, but Yang recognizes the issue with it on our economy. he's actually a pretty intelligent guy

Trump is still sperging out about the border, you think this Yang chang fellow is gonna make shit happen? I doubt it.
It's not Trump's fault Republicans voted in retards that go against him at almost every turn

a lot of people are NEETs because they lose their jobs and have little to motivate them

hey man, the wall is about to start getting built for real and that's great. i just think Trump has been far too lax on all his campaign promises and people like myself are losing hope in him

Attached: 1541841259761.jpg (474x635, 63K)

Hey Stay, if someone gets sick and has no money, should we just let him die on the streets or should we give him treatment and save his life?

Because the official policy of the US right wing is to just let him die

Operation Wetback was carried out by a Republican president Eisenhower and opposed by a Democrat senator Lyndon Johnson who represented a state with a lot of farmers who used illegal immigrant labor.

I get that. I appreciate it as a tool to put a fire under his ass, but I doubt Yang will stick with what he's saying now since no one does. We shall see what happens

that's not entirely accurate. he could get help and then get billed for it, make payments. i'm not in favor of universal healthcare, because that's when people don't get help when they need it

>not entirely accurate
patheos.com/blogs/dispatches/2018/10/15/study-45000-deaths-per-year-due-to-lack-of-health-insurance/

"Study: 45,000 Deaths Per Year Due to Lack of Health Insurance"

If you are actually pro-life, the first thing you should support is medicare for all

>that's when people don't get help when they need it
That is quite possibly the dumbest thing I have ever heard in my entire life.

i get it, you're a lefty. medicare for all is still funded by tax payers, and there is a lot of proof of it not providing help when people need it. in canada there are often long waiting periods. usa will help you immediately. i don't care if you disagree based on principle, try looking into it

You know that "democrats" and "republicans" have basically flip-flopped within the last hundred years, right? The party names are meaningless. The "democrats" back then that you are describing had beliefs more in line with what republicans today believe.

>usa will help you immediately
You think this is true if you are going to an ER without health insurance? Imagine believing this shit. Do you even live in America?

There are more waiting lines when more people have access to healthcare? shocking!

So you prefer having LESS people getting the medical treatment they need, so that there will be less waiting lines?

Attached: 20b.gif (128x128, 21K)

E-Euronymous?

>muh party switch
yeah there's a lot of overlap. i'm not really happy with either these days

>and there is a lot of proof of it not providing help when people need it.
Wow just like the current system. So what's better? Everyone gets the same access to medical treatment, but sometimes you have to wait a while, or only the people with deep pockets get medical treatment? Both options are fucked.

it's clear there's a side to the argument you simply aren't willing to consider
yes, they'll help you if you're injured, talk money after

>it's clear there's a side to the argument you simply aren't willing to consider
What side? The "money should always buy special privileges" side?

There were Presidents in the 90s

"Wow mr, president, i like getting dubs, but even i can hold back in the presence of our head in chief."- dubsman

"You're a true patriot dubsman"

Attached: trump meeting dubs man.jpg (600x588, 90K)

you can just get insurance. it's affordable. i've always had it and my parents lived paycheck to paycheck

Answer my question.
Do you prefer less people getting the medical treatment they need so that there will be shorter waiting lines?

I mean if you want the shortest waiting lines, just deny healthcare to everyone except for one person per hospital, then waiting lines will be eliminated completely

>you can just get insurance. it's affordable
This line alone shows just how incredibly sheltered you are.

money pays for it either way
i already answered you faggot jew. i have no interest in where you stand on this topic

He was momentarily adjacent to the 49th POTUS of the United States? Fucking dropped dude!

Attached: 2cca64901bb3a609a2011b19f70bb073_400x400.jpg (400x400, 29K)

not an argument. get a job

Here is a picture of trump being given an award for his contributions to helping the african american community alongside rosa parks and muhmmad ali

Attached: trump award.jpg (830x1015, 74K)

You shouldn't even play his game. Waiting times are not legitimately shorter by a significant amount for major treatments in America as compared to Canada unless you have money to grease the wheels, in which case it would be much shorter. This would obviously drive average wait times down significantly, as that is the nature of averages.

You did not answer. just tell me what you prefer:
Do you prefer less people getting the medical treatment they need so that there will be shorter waiting lines? or do you prefer everyone who needs healthcare to get the healthcare they need?

You should feel very fortunate that you grew up in an environment completely sheltered from the harsh realities of being poor in America.

False.
apnews.com/afs:Content:2601590439

The only reason I wasn't completely poor is because both my parents always worked. We weren't wealthy.
No. It's a moral question you're asking, and I already reject the premise that your politics make you virtuous. Keep patting yourself on the back for how virtuous your views make you feel. I don't care.

>money pays for it either way
Um, no fucking shit? Please explain how that has any bearing on the discussion.

Retarded conservative slowly approaching the understanding of the fact that being born is essentially a lottery and nobody deserves to be poor.

'cause

>The only reason I wasn't completely poor is because both my parents always worked. We weren't wealthy.
This is bait, isn't it? No one can be this oblivious.

You complained about waiting lines in countries with universal healthcare. Naturally when EVERYONE get healthcare, there are more waiting lines in hospitals.

Which is why lead me to this question: do you think everyone getting healthcare is a bad thing because of waiting lines, and you would rather have some people not get the healthcare they need?

You avoid this question because you know the right wing position of denying people healthcare is absolutely vile

>nobody deserves to be poor.
People who won't sacrifice for the future for themselves and their children deserve to be poor. Nobody deserves to be paid for.

But they do though, because of the very fact that nobody deserves to be poor. From the second someone is born, it was not their choice to be there. That very fact means they should be cultivated and raised well, not abused and thrown into a rugged individualistic world that they did not consent to be a part of.

What if i told you there are poor people in the US who work full time jobs? this is how fucked up the system in the US right now

prospect.org/blog/tapped/one-nine-full-time-workers-remain-mired-poverty

Once again, not an argument. If you have a point to make, try making it.
I can't cleanly state that "denying people healthcare is absolutely vile," because hospitals are running businesses, and they provide a service that costs money. You jump to conclusions because you think your perspective is moral. I think it lacks the proper nuance involved in this topic. That's why I don't easily line up with the free shit position. If you wanna believe everybody "deserves" free healthcare, you still have to define who exactly is providing it. The government doesn't necessarily have to provide that service.

The problem with your thinking is that you're suggesting it's the government's job to care for the individuals, which I don't agree with. The government is just people, after all. That's why it comes down to the moral question of where you get your ethics from. Why is it that "nobody deserves to be poor?" What does "deserve" have to do with anything? Some things simply are. It's not your choice to be here, but it's not the government's choice for you to show up on Earth either. No idea who you think should be responsible for taking care of you. The government isn't God. Lefties don't understand that. I don't derive ethics from government.

I'm not going to argue that everything's going swimmingly. I just don't claim to know what's always the most moral answer.

You seem to hold the same stupid belief that all sheltered people like you hold: that the ONLY reason anyone is ever poor or socially disadvantaged is because they're lazy and refuse to work. This is not true. You claim your parents worked paycheck to paycheck. If this were really true, all it would have taken is ONE single unexpected expense to completely financially devastate your family. Injured and you can't work and your insurance won't cover it ("insurance" isn't a catch-all, if you're poor, you can only afford shitty insurance that barely covers anything), you're out of work, you fall behind on bills, you get turned into collections, your entire life is fucked for no other reason than bad luck and a fucked up system. That's just one example. Anything can happen to cause a sudden emergency expense that many people are unable to bounce back from financially. It isn't just lazy people who struggle. That is how I know you're sheltered.

Big ups to Big Don

Attached: GTY_trump_jackson_1990_jef_160219_16x9_992.jpg (992x558, 98K)

OFF THE VISIT EPSTEIN'S ISLAND (OR "THE EP" AS I LIKE TO CALL HIM")

I'm fortunate to have had a family structure surrounding me. That doesn't mean I was sheltered, it just means I was privileged. The nuclear family is the only hope for success. But I really don't care what you think of me, it's irrelevant. Believe whatever you want. Vote however you want. I really don't care. You're not even providing any type of argument. Your point is just that "people can be poor." And? So keep believing the government should give you money. Whatever.

They should find something to motivate them.

fake news libtard
> Donald Trump and Michael Jackson pose for a photo on Trump's private plane April 2, 1990 on their way to the opening of the Trump Taj Mahal

me in the back

Exactly. What DOES "deserve" have to do with anything? You are the one saying people who don't "sacrifice for the future" DO deserve to be poor. Nobody was born consenting to be born into a world where self-sacrifice is required and is somehow the most righteous lifestyle. So why do you feel so gifted with the power to say people who don't kill themselves to attain the most material comfort deserve to be poor? Obviously you don't actually have this capacity, and obviously you are wrong, because you literally have no operating philosophy and your worldview is basically Ayn Rand worship, which is fanfiction, not philosophy. Government can easily make the end of poverty a reality if we break up the major corporations and banks, raise taxes on the highest earners, ban advertising in public spaces and establish social welfare programs that every single person has access to, including healthcare, public transportation and a universal basic income.

>Your point is just that "people can be poor." And?
Well gee dipshit let's go back a to some previous posts and determine the context.
>you can just get insurance. it's affordable
>get a job
It isn't affordable for some people, and having a job doesn't magically make it affordable. You seem to think that you grew up impoverished, but you've clearly never been exposed to actually poverty.

You're projecting quite a bit without realizing it. My opinion is they don't simply deserve it, yours is that they do. I'm not a libertarian, you're just reading into things. What we have here is my opinion verses yours. I'm not convinced that you have the clearest access to what's righteous either. You just think your views are moral, but that's not enough for me. We simply disagree. If you think you have all the answers for paving the way towards a moral and righteous government, good for you. I'm going to keep learning in my own time, and I'll continue being wary of anyone who thinks their politics are the most moral. It's usually not the case. After all, where do your morals even come from, and why should anyone else respect them?

fucking retard waiting periods for the average person are only slightly longer than the US. Specialists are longer ill admit but ill take our healthcare system of america's any day

I didn't say I was impoverished, but my family did struggle, and we moved houses frequently, and my parents changed jobs multiple times. It's just a struggle that's all, but we got by.

ok

Yeah, you are literally an objectivist and nothing else. Whatever else you would call yourself, you're wrong.

Where do you get your morality from?

First of all, they are values, not morals, and secondly, John Rawls.

Simply put, it's your views against everyone else's. I do believe in an objective morality, I don't deny it. But you're quick to define me, and I'm more curious about how you'd define yourself.

>I do believe in an objective morality
Your worst nightmare.

?
As I said, I'm more curious in how you'd define yourself. No matter how convinced you are of your own position, there's no way you can convince me. I see your intent to keep the spotlight on me as projection.

Not him but your philosophies can be easily broken down as such: he wants to spread access to basic services like health care to a greater number of people, while you want to limit these basic services to a select portion of the population. These two ideas are not equally valid, and anyone with any shred of empathy would agree that one of them is a very blatant selfish-asshole position to hold.
>_I_ deserve this for arbitrary reason x, but _THOSE_ people don't!

>These two ideas are not equally valid, and anyone with any shred of empathy would agree that one of them is a very blatant selfish-asshole position to hold.
This is a moral claim. I don't believe in your interpretation of morality. It's just an opinion that you attempt to suggest is more than that.

I'm just a mild-mannered social liberal, a friend to all and totally willing to discuss, but not compromise on, the reasons why people do not deserve to be born and raised in poverty. That means I am directly opposed to any inkling of laissez-faire social Darwinism, which embodies your world view.

I'll tell you right now that social Darwinism is pseudoscience and is not supported by practical evidence as a functional social system. Your view is literally not supported by data. That's why it is wrong. Social liberalism performs better in every way.

Your interpretation of morality seems to be "getting ahead at the expense of others is okay". This is objectively an asshole position to hold. You are a narcissist.

I'm a Christian, actually. I have a clear answer for from whence my objective morality is derived. I still wouldn't claim that I have every moral answer to what works best politically, which is why you test your ideas with philosophy. I don't think you can prove that your views are more or less moral than the counter position. I think all you can do is provide your opinion on the matter.

You just made more moral judgments. Your opinion on how I’m immoral isn’t relevant to me, because you have no basis for your morality. It’s a true fallacy, in my view, to believe your politics make you moral. It’s how the left functions, in fact. Which is why I don’t respect them.

>I'm a Christian, actually. I have a clear answer for from whence my objective morality is derived
Yikes, no wonder you're so deluded

Attached: 30c.jpg (441x411, 15K)

It is a fact that social liberalism is the most advanced form of government and social organization, and that it reduces inequality, poverty, unemployment and stress, and improves health and security dramatically. This has been proven practically. We did it once, the New Deal saved the country when millions were struggling due to inequality. Ending the New Deal was our biggest economic blunder.

Hmm so you just forfeited the argument then. No surprise there. Yet, you make moral claims with no basis for them and still believe your values to be superior to others. It’s completely irrational.

It’s not a fact, it’s an opinion

>you have no basis for your morality.
Says the person who bases their morality on a book written thousands of years ago as a propaganda piece. I determine my own morality, I don't derive it from some book. I make my own decisions using all the information I can obtain.
>It’s a true fallacy, in my view, to believe your politics make you moral
It isn't a fallacy to think that behaving morally or immorally makes you moral or immoral. Whether this behavior is "political" in nature or not is irrelevant.

Numbers do not lie.

See lol @ basing your entire worldview on a single book

So your basis for morality is your own personal interpretation of information you’ve obtained? And others should be satisfied by that why?
What’s relevant is that you believe the position that healthcare should be free is moral, and that anyone who has a different perspective on the issue is immoral. What you fail to grasp is that this is simply your opinion.

The only thing you refuse to be convinced of is that objective reality does indeed exist, and it is more in line with social liberal ideals, not yours.

I do, in fact, base my morality on the tenants of Christianity. I believe it to be superior, as a worldview, to anything else. I don’t believe that morals have any value without a foundation, and I believe that God is the only true moral foundation. Everything else is just opinion. That’s why I’m an objectivist. “lol” and “yikes” aren’t arguments.

Where does that objective morality come from? Because before you stated that it’s simply “empathy” that gets you there; but that’s still merely a personal moral judgment.

You're more of a Christian libertarian than an objectivist. Objectivism is pretty much entirely atheistic. You're a Ron Paul kinda libertarian.

I just mean that the worldview to which I subscribe is objective. I’m not a libertarian, I believe in the utility of government, my views verge on authoritarian at times. I’m looking into monarchism of the theocratic kind. We reach for the worlds we’d rather see, after all.

> I believe that God is the only true moral foundation.
Why? What led you to believe this? You must have some reason.

>Everything else is just opinion.
>MY beliefs are objectively correct. Yours are just opinions.

Attached: dkdhsiskshsjsodld.jpg (280x363, 65K)

>tripfagging
Why?

>tripfagging
Not sure you know what that word means

This
Yang backs his shit up with data, is forward thinking, and relies on the substance of his own policy instead of just attacking the other candidate
I like him

Not objective "morality", objective "reality". More people do more and better things when more people have material comfort without high levels of stress during their upbringing and adulthood. This has been proven. High taxes have never hurt America's economy, it's a myth. They have improved conditions for millions and this resulted in even more economic success. It was ending this practice that drove our economy into the trash. Fewer people feel like they have done well in life, few people are doing well. Most people report not being able to do things they really want to do because they have to work. This is your reality. This is when we do what you want us to do. This is where we are now.

I mean, yeah. Seeking got me there. I already held beliefs about morality, but it didn’t make sense to me I would believe in good if nothing truly good actually existed. After all, nothing is entirely good, everything is relative. But I believed in the idea of perfection, which I guess led me to seek what could actually embody that idea. It’s obviously a long story, but perfection is in fact an idea which exists, and the reason I because there is prefection. Hope this isn’t coming off as too circular. Point being, good exists because SOMETHING good exists, and that something is the eternal being God.

That does sum up what I believe. Obviously I can’t believe my views are right, as well as every other contrary view. What’s your point? Doesn’t everyone think their views are right?
I was trolling stay, that’s all

>christian objectivist social darwinist

i think he's taking you for a ruse cruise

why is everyone replying to that like that was some sort of genius comeback?

I never claimed to be a social Darwinist. I just happen to believe the government isn’t responsible for curing all of humanity’s woes. In fact, I don’t believe they’re capable of that

So because of some abstract idea of perfection (which you refer to as god), you believe... what exactly? How does that lead back to you subscribing to christian beliefs?

So they shouldn't even try to improve the lives of their citizens, because they'll never be able to create some imaginary perfect utopia? Why ever strive for anything in life if you'll never be perfect, huh?

It’s not really the reality I want, it’s just what is. I don’t believe people are more comfortable when they’re more wealthy. Work gives people a purpose. What is life on the lazy river of government aid? Most people just smoke pot and drink. I’m saying I don’t think handouts are the way to peace, but I also don’t like the modern system, which is why I’m attracted to Yang. I’m becoming more fiscally progressive in a sense, but I don’t think the liberals have all the answers. Capitalism is a dead end and I’m starting to see that now. I, too, even as a conservative, want society to be in a happier state

youtube.com/watch?v=GYoKRS_eWZY

Now you’re asking the real questions, but that’s why we get bogged down on what the role of government ought to be. If you have some people getting their happiness from certain views over there (conservatives) and people believing happiness of fulfilled by certain views over here (liberals) then you’ll have people constantly warring over how to utilize the government. Christianity does change things, especially in the USA. The government becomes a different entity when you don’t see it as Father

Your religiosity doesn't really introduce anything useful to the conversation.

> I don’t believe people are more comfortable when they’re more wealthy.
Then why are you against the idea of the wealthy being taxed more to fund social programs like universal health care?
> Work gives people a purpose. What is life on the lazy river of government aid?
No one in this thread is suggesting the gubment pay everyone's salaries and coddle them from birth to death. There is an in between, you know. You do realize you take advantage of the government aid every single day, right? You use roads built by the government, you have a job because you got a high school diploma from a public school funded by the government, etc.

Everyone has a moral code. Everybody. Some people are brutal and more lax on morality, some are more uptight, but everyone subscribes to some sort of foundational ethic, if they survive and are conscious in any way. Seeking, questioning, testing different faiths and systems of ethics led me to what I believe to be the answer of what perfection is, and that’s Christ. The idea exists, because the reality of it exists. I took a lot of psychedelics to get there too, mushrooms mostly, but like I said it’s a long story. Basically, the fault in our existence, the reason for death itself, is sin. Nothing exists without sin, but God. Nobody can figure out a perfect moral system because every person is flawed. So we need a source that isn’t flawed to give us a perfect moral code. Logic will get you there, philosophy will get you there, these moral judgments are very real. They have to come from a place.

>No one in this thread is suggesting the gubment pay everyone's salaries and coddle them from birth to death.
That is actually what I am suggesting. This is the next level. Humanity will not evolve to have less government, we will evolve to have more. Resisting it only causes problems.

I disagree. When people are telling me I’m an asshole because of my political views, I have no choice but to question their morals. My “religiosity” is the source of my morality. That’s why I can’t be convinced that I’m simply just an asshole. Everyone’s an asshole, so what? Talk about not lending anything to the conversation, these useless ad homs.

dont giva fuck. gimme my free $1000 monthly lol ima spend it all on weed and video games xd

I do agree that this is an inevitabilaty (assuming we dont wipe ourselves out before then) but I don't think we'll see it in our lifetimes. I think it also has the potential to go just as poorly as it could go well. But that's a whole other topic of discussion

americas ranked like 50th for healthcare in the world retard. and its prices keep going up each year lol.

rather have a long waiting period than zero help at all idiot haha wtf

So every hospital should be government owned and run then?
Once again, you’re getting into the role of government and it’s just too broad at this point. I don’t think government needs to provide education. Should they give everyone a free car to drive on these roads? How about no roads and everyone gets free horses? I’ve yet to be convinced that the government should be involved in every aspect of human comfort and human life.

>involved in every aspect of human comfort and human life.

they already are by default. theyre spending trillions on a useless war to benefit a few corporations. trillions that couldve went to improving the quality of your life.

Nobody gets turned away if they’re in critical condition. You’ll still get helped, you’ll just get billled afterwards, or your insurance will. It’s really not a bad system, people just don’t like that capital is involved.

And if you can't pay that bill, you get a huge bad mark on your credit history, which could make it impossible for you to get hired. Free market sure is working out, huh?

And if you have insurance and it doesn't cover anything because it doesn't meet your deductible, now you have to pay full price for treatment AND your insurance premiums which you basically paid for for nothing, because the insurance did nothing for you. Real great results from this system, right?

I don’t believe in the morality of the government. That’s my problem. Reallocating those funds is not that simple, and it might be foolish to expect the people to actually benefit when government begins to tax the wealthy more. Maybe those funds will just go to more aid for Israel. I don’t know, I’m conflicted. I was a libertarian for far too long

lmao any bill for someone in critical condition would be like $200k if theyre uninsured. stfu.

Right, and those huge medical bills can completely ruin a poor person's life, to the point that some would rather just die than seek medical attention for their ailments.

at the end of the day its the people's fault. not the governments. we all know how much money is wasted everyday in the middle east sinkhole, yet we still wake up everyday, goto work, come homer jerkoff and play video games not caring. so theyll just keep stealing ur tax dollar until enough people go on strike or vote them out. which, its been like 20 years at this point so i dont see it happening haha. enjoy your fall of rome, it happened the exact same way.